Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

On a scale of 1-6

radwa16radwa16 Registered User Posts: 1 New Member
Here is my perspective essay. Could you please give me a grade on a scale of 1 to 6 with 6 being the best? I am looking forward for your comments! Thanks :)

“Complete disclosure of facts by a country’s leaders is not always in the best interest of
the public.”

Although the public has the right to be told the truth by their leaders regarding the various aspects of the nation to which they pledge allegiance, certain pieces of information are better kept below the radar for all the right reasons. Some may argue that in an ever expanding media coverage it will prove difficult to hide anything really, but such measures may be deemed necessary at times when the benefit of their secrecy greatly outweigh those brought about after their divulgence.
When it comes to the preservation of classified information, the CIA and former KGB set extraordinary examples. All the nations worldwide have their own versions of such entities, whose primary aim is to increase the awareness and the intelligence of one country regarding its neighbors. Possessing such knowledge in itself is considered classified because a country’s greatest strength might lie in the fact that its enemies are not aware that their systems are being breached. Imagine how it would be if the CIA released a report each day of the new intelligence gathered about countries worldwide! It would not only jeopardize the safety of its undercover agents, but also basically make the information completely useless.
An arabic axiom states that you should never spread out your dirty laundry in front of the neighbors. The truth can sometimes be ugly and very aceric. This is especially crucial nowadays, as news crosses all borders. Since it is widely known that nothing travels faster than bad news, when released out in the open, a single episode may paint a disturbing image about the behavior of an entire population and cause them to be perceived in a fallacious manner worldwide. For the interest of those citizens, such scandals need to be handled with discretion and as long as the culprits receive an appropriate punishment for their deeds, the civil rights will have been fulfilled and no moral obligation will necessitate its release.
In addition, at times of war, it is sometimes a good idea to keep the public in the dark. Embedded among those citizens are spies, who pass on every little piece of information they encounter to the enemy lines. It would hardly be a wise decision to discuss the army’s plan of attack or how the defense lines are constructed on national television. Surely, sharing some information is essential so as to involve the public in the atmosphere of the battlefield, but certain vital tactics need to be in covert. In the 6th October War, fought by the Egyptian army who surprised the enemy with an afternoon attack, the public didn’t hear about it until late that evening.
In conclusion, I believe that elected leaders should exercise their rational thinking to discern between the importance of candour and the welfare of the people. Once a line has been demarcated, news agencies should freely wander within the indicated green zone, yet deter from crossing the red line.
This discussion has been closed.